Chen v. Keisler, No. 07-1304 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1304 FEN YONG CHEN, a/k/a Fen Yuan Chen, Petitioner, versus PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-731-915) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fen Yong Chen, Appellant Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tyrone Sojourner, Jason Xavier Hamilton, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Javier E. Balasquide, Chief Counsel, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fen Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to deportation proceedings based upon changed circumstances. reopen We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen s argument that he is eligible for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture based on an alleged fear of punishment for his illegal departure from China or asylum request, because Chen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by making this argument before the Board. 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.